The Cambrian problem

[-57]

This is incorrect. The cambrian "explosion" took place over the course of 200 or so million years. hardly all at once. And there are ancestral fossils, tons, in fact. Plus, precambrian fossils also exist. bacteria predate the cambrian entirely..

That would be incorrect. When the cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

 

[-57]

The basic geological column is found in marine basins around the world;

The geological column for the most part is only found in text books.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would be incorrect. When the cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

How do you determine if an animal suddenly appears?

How do you determine that it is fully developed?

Until you answer these questions, you don't have an argument.

Also, finding the ancestors of an entire phyla in the earliest sediments is exactly what we would expect to find if evolution is true. You are pointing to evidence for evolution.

 

[RickG]

The geological column for the most part is only found in text books.

That is not true. Here is a list of 25 locations where it is know to exist in its full entirety.

• The Ghadames Basin in Libya
• The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
• The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
• The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
• The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
• The Adana Basin in Turkey
• The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
• The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
• The Carpathian Basin in Poland
• The Baltic Basin in the USSR
• The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
• The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
• The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
• The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
• The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
• The Jiuxi Basin China
• The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
• The Tarim Basin China
• The Szechwan Basin China
• The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
• The Williston Basin in North Dakota
• The Tampico Embayment Mexico
• The Bogata Basin Colombia
• The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
• The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Sources:
Robertson Group, 1989. Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World. (Llandudno Gwynedd, England: The Robertson Group)
Trendall, A.F. et al, editors, Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3, Geological Survey of Western Australia. (Perth, State Printing Division, 1990).
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990)

 

[RickG]

That would be incorrect. When the cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

Yeah. In this case geologically speaking, 56 million years. And try to understand what it means by phyla. That's a large group classification, not one of individuals as you seem to imply.

 

[-57]

How do you determine if an animal suddenly appears?

How do you determine that it is fully developed?

Until you answer these questions, you don't have an argument.

Also, finding the ancestors of an entire phyla in the earliest sediments is exactly what we would expect to find if evolution is true. You are pointing to evidence for evolution.

Every animal in the cambrian would be considered as fully developed. What is meant by that is they are functional with no line of transitionals leading up to what is found in the cambrian.

The trilobite is found in the cambrian with an amazing complex eye....with no line of transitionals leading up to it.

 

[RickG]

Every animal in the cambrian would be considered as fully developed. What is meant by that is they are functional with no line of transitionals leading up to what is found in the cambrian.

The trilobite is found in the cambrian with an amazing complex eye....with no line of transitionals leading up to it.

Might I suggest you stop making things up.

Major types of trilobites appearing in the Cambrian include:[22]

• Abadiella (Lower Cambrian)
• Judomia (Lower Cambrian)
• Olenellus (Lower Cambrian)
• Ellipsocephalus (Middle Cambrian)
• Elrathia (Middle Cambrian)
• Paradoxides (Middle Cambrian)
• Peronopsis (Middle Cambrian)
• Olenus (Late Cambrian)

Source: Prehistoric Life: The Definitive Visual History of Life On Earth. London: Dorling Kindersley. 2009. p. 76,88,89,90,91,104,105,127,161,180,181.

"Morphological similarities between trilobites and early arthropod-like creatures such as Spriggina, Parvancorina, and other "trilobitomorphs" of the Ediacaran period of the Precambrian...."

source: http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Taxa/Arthropoda/Trilobita/TriOri.html
http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

Every animal in the cambrian would be considered as fully developed. What is meant by that is they are functional with no line of transitionals leading up to what is found in the cambrian.

How did you determine that there are no transitionals leading up to them?

The trilobite is found in the cambrian with an amazing complex eye....with no line of transitionals leading up to it.

How did you determine that?

 

[-57]

That is not true. Here is a list of 25 locations where it is know to exist in its full entirety.

• The Ghadames Basin in Libya
• The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
• The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
• The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
• The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
• The Adana Basin in Turkey
• The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
• The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
• The Carpathian Basin in Poland
• The Baltic Basin in the USSR
• The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
• The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
• The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
• The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
• The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
• The Jiuxi Basin China
• The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
• The Tarim Basin China
• The Szechwan Basin China
• The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
• The Williston Basin in North Dakota
• The Tampico Embayment Mexico
• The Bogata Basin Colombia
• The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
• The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Sources:
Robertson Group, 1989. Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World. (Llandudno Gwynedd, England: The Robertson Group)
Trendall, A.F. et al, editors, Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3, Geological Survey of Western Australia. (Perth, State Printing Division, 1990).
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990)

There may be a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the geologic column have been "assigned". But, this does not mean that the geological column really exist. From what I understand the areas where geologist assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the earth’s surface.
One doesn't gain much confidence in the existance of the geological column when 99% of it is missing.

If one could stack all the geological column on top of each other it would be over 100 high. Clearly those locations listed above are not that thick...and quite apparent that they are not complete.

Another problem is where the geological column is out of order.
Qilian Shan
Lewis Overthrust
Franklin Mountains
The Glarus Overthrust
Empire Mountains
Mythen Peak
Heart Mountain
Matterhorn

 

[-57]

Might I suggest you stop making things up.

Major types of trilobites appearing in the Cambrian include:[22]

• Abadiella (Lower Cambrian)
• Judomia (Lower Cambrian)
• Olenellus (Lower Cambrian)
• Ellipsocephalus (Middle Cambrian)
• Elrathia (Middle Cambrian)
• Paradoxides (Middle Cambrian)
• Peronopsis (Middle Cambrian)
• Olenus (Late Cambrian)

Source: Prehistoric Life: The Definitive Visual History of Life On Earth. London: Dorling Kindersley. 2009. p. 76,88,89,90,91,104,105,127,161,180,181.

"Morphological similarities between trilobites and early arthropod-like creatures such as Spriggina, Parvancorina, and other "trilobitomorphs" of the Ediacaran period of the Precambrian...."

source: http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Taxa/Arthropoda/Trilobita/TriOri.html
http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm

Here is a quote from your link:

"The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites.

That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins."

....You kinda shot yourself in the foot with that resource.

 

[Loudmouth]

There may be a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the geologic column have been "assigned". But, this does not mean that the geological column really exist.

"The" geologic column? Geologic columns exist everywhere you go. You are sitting atop a geologic column right now. There is no "THE" geologic column, nor does there need to be.

Let's use another example. Here is a historical timeline:

Should I consider this timeline to be a lie if I am not able to find a 5 foot by 5 foot dig site where I can dig down and find artifacts from each of these events all stacked one on top of another? Of course not, right?

Why do you think that geology must have the same sediments everywhere? You have heard of erosion, haven't you? You do realize that sedimentation can occur in one place, but not another, right?

One doesn't gain much confidence in the existance of the geological column when 99% of it is missing.

It isn't missing. Sediments from each time period can be found in many places across the globe. Or do you think Romans didn't exist because because we can only find Roman artifacts around the Mediterranean Sea instead of across the entire globe?

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is a quote from your link:

"The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites.

That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins."

....You kinda shot yourself in the foot with that resource.

How did you determine that these trilobites do not have any ancestors?

 

[RickG]

Here is a quote from your link:

"The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites.

That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins."

....You kinda shot yourself in the foot with that resource.

No, you didn't follow the sources I provided where they describe the connections.

 

[RickG]

"The" geologic column? Geologic columns exist everywhere you go. You are sitting atop a geologic column right now. There is no "THE" geologic column, nor does there need to be.

Let's use another example. Here is a historical timeline:

Should I consider this timeline to be a lie if I am not able to find a 5 foot by 5 foot dig site where I can dig down and find artifacts from each of these events all stacked one on top of another? Of course not, right?

Why do you think that geology must have the same sediments everywhere? You have heard of erosion, haven't you? You do realize that sedimentation can occur in one place, but not another, right?




It isn't missing. Sediments from each time period can be found in many places across the globe. Or do you think Romans didn't exist because because we can only find Roman artifacts around the Mediterranean Sea instead of across the entire globe?

Excellent analogy.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hello Shemjaza.

Star formation.

For more than a decade, astronomers have known that stars formed
more rapidly in the past compared to today. At present, only a few stars
form each year in a typical large spiral galaxy like the Milky Way, but
five to ten billion years ago, the same kind of galaxy formed stars ten times
more quickly.
(Explaining Faster Star Formation in the Past, March 10, 2010, by Dr. Jeff Zweerink)

That is to be expected from uniform laws. When there is more hydrogen, you get more stars and larger stars.

I'm a little rusty on my astrophysics, but with large chunks of time like 10 billion years the actual amount of space would be significant, I imagine.

We don't see enough remnants for billions of years though, maybe a few thousand.

You know what that is called in real life? A fairy tale.
There is no proof of stars evolving or being formed anywhere.
There is NO natural process that could force gases together
in concentrations high enough to form a star.

Gravity, and we can see stellar nurseries with the Hubble.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That would be incorrect. When the cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

But sir, I linked you the fossils. We have tons for trilobites alone. Methinks you are confusing the cambrian fossil record with the precambrian fossil record; you know, the fossil record that rarely has fossils beyond bacterial colonies. Some of the early cambrian animals are confusing in their strange biology, where the distinction between plant and animal is blurry to the point of being uncertain about what category some fall into.

Additionally, I see no rabbits, no mammals whatsoever in the cambrian. Or any modern creature, for that matter. All it would take is 1 fossil like that to deal a serious blow to evolution, but the fact that the fossil record isn't complete, is irrelevant. Evolution doesn't stand on it alone; in fact, not a single fossil could exist, and we would still have the evidence necessary for evolution to qualify as a valid theory. Hard to argue with it, considering a small number of organisms actually do evolve fast enough for us to witness it.

 

[-57]

But sir, I linked you the fossils. We have tons for trilobites alone. Methinks you are confusing the cambrian fossil record with the precambrian fossil record; you know, the fossil record that rarely has fossils beyond bacterial colonies. Some of the early cambrian animals are confusing in their strange biology, where the distinction between plant and animal is blurry to the point of being uncertain about what category some fall into.

Additionally, I see no rabbits, no mammals whatsoever in the cambrian. Or any modern creature, for that matter. All it would take is 1 fossil like that to deal a serious blow to evolution, but the fact that the fossil record isn't complete, is irrelevant. Evolution doesn't stand on it alone; in fact, not a single fossil could exist, and we would still have the evidence necessary for evolution to qualify as a valid theory. Hard to argue with it, considering a small number of organisms actually do evolve fast enough for us to witness it.

If you were following this thread...you would have seen I have already answered your questions.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up and it's quite possible a further clean up will take place. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up.

Please STOP with the Flaming!!

The Flaming and Goading rules state:

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● Only the person to whom the post is addressed may report the other. Anyone may report generalized flames or goads which are addressed to a group of members.
● Moderators have the right to report egregious violations of flaming or goading.
● Clear violations of the flaming rule will result in bans.

You can find those listed within the Board Rules

As you can see it clearly states that you are to treat ALL members with courtesy and respect through CIVIL dialogue. That wasn't happening here. Also, you are to be addressing the CONTENT of the post NOT the poster personally. Again that wasn't happening here.

Another thing that was taking place was Off Topic (OT) posts. Between the Flaming and OT posts the thread got somewhat derailed. If this continues the thread can and will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with staff actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you were following this thread...you would have seen I have already answered your questions.

i didn't ask any questions really, more like i answered yours. in fact, there is not a single question in the post this is a response to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is one mighty assumption you have there.

Apparently star formation is the deeper past, was much more rapid than present
day star formation.

What assumption? I have found that creationists when they say 'assumption' at best mean that they do not understand. And yes, in the very early universe, when the universe was much smaller than it is now the density of hydrogen in space would have been greater, therefore more rapid star formation.